SCotUS takes up DC gun ban case!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by M14 Shooter, Oct 12, 2007.

  1. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,126
    Thanks Received:
    1,748
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,493
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,591
    Thanks Received:
    5,909
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,020
    Actually us gun rights activists may not like the ruling.

    DC is a special case all together. The Constitution specifically states that Congress has sole authority over its government. It would not be unreasonable for a ruling to occur that was not specific about the 2nd amendment at all.

    Even assuming that doesn't effect the case, the Court side stepped the issue in 1939 and can easily side step it again in numerous legal ways.

    What SHOULD have happened was when the Assault Weapon ban was passed it should have been taken to court, it was in direct contradiction to what the Court DID rule in 1939.

    Specifically that a weapon MUST have a military use or be a weapon the military used to be covered by the 2nd Amendment. The assault ban specifically banned weapons FOR being military useful.

    White versus Texas in 1939 I believe is the case.
     
  3. Shogun
    Offline

    Shogun Free: Mudholes Stomped

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    30,495
    Thanks Received:
    2,224
    Trophy Points:
    1,043
    Ratings:
    +2,260
    thats going to get interesting. I hope they make a ruling rather than pawn it off as some state prerogative or something.

    I can't see how the current SCOTUS would rule against owning guns. The second amendment is pretty clear on the right have arms, I think. Parsing the second leaves room to do the same with the rest of them.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,126
    Thanks Received:
    1,748
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,493
    Except that:
    -The Appeals court ruled specifially on the individual right 2nd, whcih formed the basis for its decision
    -The appeal deals directly with that basis for the ruling.

    Maybe. If they thought that the current precedents handles the situation, they would not have taken the case. The DC case, combined w/ Emerson shows a fracture in the curcuit courts, and the fracture must be addressed.

    Agreed. And it doesnt matter if you hold the individual or collective view - the AWB violates the 2nd.

    US v Miller
     
  5. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,591
    Thanks Received:
    5,909
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,020
    This Court and all the ones before it routinely pawn off tough issues. BUT that aside there are several reasons the ruling could have no application on a broad front and could have no significance at all as to the standing or non standing of the 2nd Amendment.

    The most glaring is the fact that DC is under control of the Federal Government AND the Federal Government can and does restrict gun possession ( not ownership) on all Government property. In one form or another. The Legislature could end the debate on DC with a simple act of Congress. They have sole authority of that District. And it would be Constitutional.

    The point being that DC does not actually ban ownership. They just make it VERY restrictive on getting and storing weapons. Again that is consistant with ALL Government run entities.
     
  6. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,626
    Thanks Received:
    4,860
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,538
    Unless RGS is right about Congress having authority over DC, this SHOULD be a state perogative. State's rights?

    I agree.

    Basically, leave the fucking Bill of Rights alone. They're inalienable rights, and altering or erasing them will set precedence for further intrusion on them.
     
  7. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    What constitutes an arm – a bazooka, a tank, landmines? Should anyone be allowed to own as many unmarked fully automatic machine guns as he likes – and without a background check? With regard to the other amendments, does the right to exercise my religion allow me to not pay taxes if some of my taxes go to creating arms and my religion, as I understand it, prohibits me from supporting guns? So much of this is relative. There is little, if anything, black-and-white.

    Yes. I think that gun regulations should be loosened a little bit more.
     
  8. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,591
    Thanks Received:
    5,909
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,020
    In 1939 the court answered the question.
     
  9. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    In many states, people are allowed to carry concealed guns. You dodged the question. If you were the ultimate judge, where would you draw the line?
     
  10. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    I have a question about your signature ...

    Can I have one?:eusa_angel:
     

Share This Page